Healthcare Bill Passes!!!

[Irene Hernandez SUCKS]

me and mine wrote:

Hussein Obama hates America and every veterans who has ever fought for it.

I don't like you either, you hillbilly bast*rd, and I'm a Republican.

[dodch]

MrPhilNoPayne wrote:

white people are very angry now that a black man has passed the health bill before any white president in the history of this country

I hope you're joking and not serious. It has nothing to do with who passed it. Pelosi is the one most responsible for this train wreck. For some reason she and others think that this bill will help keep them in power which is quite the contrary.
First black president? He's a "Halfrican American" if you feel the need to describe him using a hyphene, which is really sad. Remember, Obama wants to be "all things to all men". His black side comes out when needed and his white side does the same. He'll bash the poor in front of the rich, and bash the rich in front of the poor. All things to all men, but who is the real Barack Obama? Does he even know who he really is?

[dodch]

june wrote:

A Black President didnt pass the health bill
It was white Pelosi and white Harry Reid.
They hid behind a Black President to get their way and destroy the country

Pelosi is the one to be held responsible for the passing in the House. It still has to get through the Senate.

[MAX- AMERICAN]

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>No, it wasn't American employers who forced them out. It was the GOVERNMENT of MEXICO who had no use for the ones heading our way. They were simply a burden, and if they could be shoved over into the U.S. to work in the low wage sector and send money home, they could prove "useful". Mexico wouldn't have to feed them, educate them or be bothered with their myriad needs.
Do you know the current level of contribution to the economy of Mexico from remittances? Last I heard, it was the third largest source of revenue. Of course, you know all about Mexico, so I'm sure you have the current data on hand.

Of course he knows.....

He new what you were going to post before you did.....

[Mayhap]

Sinajuavi wrote:

Gringo isn't a racial slur, gringo. A gringo could be white or black. It's an ethnic designation really... or a nationality. Many are fine people. You're not... you're a whining bigot.
Mexico's problems are caused by USA corporations. Naturally you selfish gringos with no integrity or character will blame the poorest of the poor for this... but the fact is USA corporations control the Mexican economy. Naturally you're ignorant of any of this... lol... you can't even speak Castilian!
How many pounds overweight are you personally?

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH..........

Babble babble b* b*, blah blah blah.

(That's Castilian for hogwash, amigo.)

[kobadger]

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>LOL! OK. N1. Actually, if you look at the name for a minute, it's phonetically (license plate style) "Entrepreneur 1".;-)
Yes, Kobadger, I agree that it's highly unlikely anything like an amnesty can go anywhere anytime in the next few years. BUT, I think the "status quo" continues to harm us and we need to do something to force Congress off their duffs toward mandatory E-Verify and removing birthright citizenship for a child born here of two illegal parents. Those are vital objectives we need to achieve in the near term. If not, when the economy starts to lift, the rush will be on to return to America, and we'll still be in deep trouble.

I get the code now lol. I agree. Conservative/Traditional Americans of ALL races,religions etc. need to encourage our reps. to take advantage of the current state of the nation by DEMANDING the 14th amendment be clarified and ending so called "Birth-right Citizenship!! No other country in the world allows this so why should WE!! Make E-Verify mandatory for ALL jobs. Be it GM or the local QT ! Georgia uses E-Verify on everybody(White,Black,Hispanic ) everytime you sumbit that ss# on ANY application for ANY/ALL services!! We also need to pressure OUR reps. into forcing the issue of the 14th amendment as well as illegal immigration to the table because if you notice..Liberals are trying to stay well away from that topic and for good reason. Let's force our reps. to call em all out about illegal immigration once and for all.

[Mable]

Sinajuavi wrote:

Gringo isn't a racial slur, gringo. A gringo could be white or black. It's an ethnic designation really... or a nationality. Many are fine people. You're not... you're a whining bigot.
Mexico's problems are caused by USA corporations. Naturally you selfish gringos with no integrity or character will blame the poorest of the poor for this... but the fact is USA corporations control the Mexican economy. Naturally you're ignorant of any of this... lol... you can't even speak Castilian!
How many pounds overweight are you personally?

That's your defense? That's all you got? LOL! So what you're saying, by your OWN words, is you didn't use a racial slur, you used an ethnic slur?! Oh, excuse me for getting that wrong. I apologize for the error. You meant to use an ethnic slur and are highly offended that it was mistaken for racial slur.

(Jeez... this is like taking candy from a baby.) Hey, everyone, Sinajuavi wants to be known as a particular kind of redneck hick who ONLY uses ethnic slurs, but abhors racial ones. Kind of like a Nazi who hates Jews, but ONLY due to their ethnic background. Apparently, we're meant to respect him for making that distinction and targeting his blind hate in a most carefully unracial fashion. LOL.

[0really]

headintheclouds wrote:

<quoted text>You didn't say it, no. But if you are having that conversation once a week, you are obviously implying something. You are right about ignorance. I'd suggest though that ignorance comes from across the boards.

I "imply" nothing.
The people who get mad and hurt by my pointing out their ignorance and hypocrisy INFER the "hate" we discuss routinely.
Now, am I wrong to infer that you just implied that this ignorance you speak of comes from me?
I am far from ignorant, whether you choose to believe it, based on a few posts made on a public forum, without ever having had a meaningful discussion with me, or not.

[0really]

Mable wrote:

<quoted text>
That's your defense? That's all you got? LOL! So what you're saying, by your OWN words, is you didn't use a racial slur, you used an ethnic slur?! Oh, excuse me for getting that wrong. I apologize for the error. You meant to use an ethnic slur and are highly offended that it was mistaken for racial slur.
(Jeez... this is like taking candy from a baby.) Hey, everyone, Sinajuavi wants to be known as a particular kind of redneck hick who ONLY uses ethnic slurs, but abhors racial ones. Kind of like a Nazi who hates Jews, but ONLY due to their ethnic background. Apparently, we're meant to respect him for making that distinction and targeting his blind hate in a most carefully unracial fashion. LOL.

That's alot like when a negro posts
..."not ALL crackas, just the RACIST crackas",
.....isn't it?

[Sinajuavi]

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>No, it wasn't American employers who forced them out. It was the GOVERNMENT of MEXICO who had no use for the ones heading our way. They were simply a burden, and if they could be shoved over into the U.S. to work in the low wage sector and send money home, they could prove "useful". Mexico wouldn't have to feed them, educate them or be bothered with their myriad needs.
Do you know the current level of contribution to the economy of Mexico from remittances? Last I heard, it was the third largest source of revenue. Of course, you know all about Mexico, so I'm sure you have the current data on hand.

Wrong again, racist. USA corporations ARE responsible for forcing them over the border. Their govt allows it, enables it, but it is USA corporations forcing farmers off their land, paying sweatshop wages on which one can't feed a family, etc. And they're the ones luring them north with promises of jobs in gringolandia.

Without the remittances, many villages would die. The old people and children there would go hungry. Of course that would please you. I think nothing would get you off like Mexicans suffering...

Typical pathological anti-immigrant bigot.

[The Sage]

Sinajuavi wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong again, racist. USA corporations ARE responsible for forcing them over the border. Their govt allows it, enables it, but it is USA corporations forcing farmers off their land, paying sweatshop wages on which one can't feed a family, etc. And they're the ones luring them north with promises of jobs in gringolandia.
Without the remittances, many villages would die. The old people and children there would go hungry. Of course that would please you. I think nothing would get you off like Mexicans suffering...
Typical pathological anti-immigrant bigot.

Do you have ANY new thoughts or does it please you to post the same drivel over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.........

[John]

Republicans sees Health Care as a commodity to trade on a Maket, index or some exchange. Civilized citizens see Health Care as a basic civil necessity whose accessibility defines civilized morals of a community.

The Republicans aren’t sensible and evidence of this statement is their love affair with a half wit hillbilly from the outback of Alaska. Though she’s never read anything more challenging than a comic book she’s releasing a Book. This provides clear indication of the intellectual challenges that are common place with a dissent group that sees the Reform to Health Care and Medical facilities as some infringement on their rights and promotes the innovation on weapons of mass destruction over the quality an individual’s life.

There can be no reasonable dialogue with anyone maintaining the instincts of some animal.

This is not a display of American Values. These people have adopted to the level of civility of the radical unconscious Muslim extremist the diffrence in attacks on humanity are one favors sucide boomers and the other restrictive human rights legislation.

[NTRPRNR1]

Sinajuavi wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong again, racist. USA corporations ARE responsible for forcing them over the border. Their govt allows it, enables it, but it is USA corporations forcing farmers off their land, paying sweatshop wages on which one can't feed a family, etc. And they're the ones luring them north with promises of jobs in gringolandia.
Without the remittances, many villages would die. The old people and children there would go hungry. Of course that would please you. I think nothing would get you off like Mexicans suffering...
Typical pathological anti-immigrant bigot.

You poor misguided stepchild. You remind me of Dillon Klebold. Did the U.S.A. negotiate NAFTA on its' own? One way street? WHO agreed to purchase corn from the U.S.A.? Why, I do believe that would have been Mexico - knowing full well that to do so would kill the livelihood of many Mexican farmers. Did the government of Mexico care? Apparently, not at all.

Have you ever been to Appalachia? How about the Ozarks? Google "The Children of Appalachia". You'll enjoy it. It's right up your alley, EXCEPT these American children don't fit your favored ethnic profile.

[Provocateur]

Top Five Health Care Reform Lies

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill." What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.

Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options. Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.

If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them. But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.

Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!

The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.

Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage. And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation. 

Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits. Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy.

Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care. The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.

[Bubba]

Why is this still a thread? It passed the house, but is DOA in the Senate

[Provocateur]

Crawl back under the rock.

[Jorge]

betty white wrote:

<quoted text>
They don't, they expect the taxpayers to pick up the slack and keep feeding them and their progeny. People who choose to do nothing for themselves should be left with nothing.

What about taxpayers who refuse to pay their taxes?

[Independent Thinker]

Healthcare Bill is....

NANCY PELOSI PASSING GAS!

!

!

!

!

!

[jimmy]

i love watching the community monkey fail.

[Provocateur]

“My name is Wendell Potter and for 20 years, I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies, and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick—all so they could satisfy their Wall Street investors.” So the former head of corporate communications and chief corporate spokesman at insurance giant CIGNA began his testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation last month.
Potter had a lot to say, but hardly anyone to tell his story to: only four Senators, three Democrats and one Republican, were present to listen to him.
At least 46 million Americans are uninsured and 25 million more are underinsured, meaning that they have some insurance but are unable to cover the full cost of their medical needs. In the debate over the future of health care, Potter has emerged as an advocate for the public option, arguing that the insurance industry has misled and short-changed customers for bigger profits. Now a senior fellow on health care at Center for Media and Democracy, Potter has been debunking industry spin on his blog and in media appearances, including a July 10th interview on the Bill Moyers Journal.
Potter’s argument is simple: Insurance companies have been spending less and less of their customers’ money on paying for medical care and pocketing more and more of it. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, for the seven largest insurers, the medical loss ratio—how much of a premium dollar is used to pay medical claims—fell from 85.3 percent in 1998 to 81.6 percent in 2008. The result, says Potter, amounts to several billion of dollars for those insurance companies and a plunge in stock value for those companies that fail to continually cut their medical costs.
The soaring profits have been achieved by pushing unprofitable patients off the rolls, denying coverage, jacking up premiums and selling plans that provide little coverage.
Rescission is one way in which insurers have sought, as Potter puts it, to “meet Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.” Insurance companies will cancel a policy claiming that customers failed to disclose key information about their condition, even in cases where the companies themselves recorded that same information. An investigation by the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations found that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, avoiding paying out more $300 million over a five-year period. They targeted people with serious conditions such as breast cancer, lymphoma and high blood pressure. When Rep Bart Stupak (D-Mich) asked the heads of the three insurers if they would eliminate the practice of dropping sick patients off the rolls except in those cases of “intentional fraud,” all three refused.